The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society’s calculation for 1914 being the end of the “Gentile times” is convoluted and shoddy at best. However, suppose this reasoning is correct. What if the Bible indeed prophesied that there would be 2,520 years from the time that Jerusalem was destroyed and the “last days” began? Counting backward from 1914, 2,520 years brings us to 607 B.C.E. But was Jerusalem destroyed in 607 B.C.E.?
An uncomfortable fact for the Watch Tower organization is that the entire field of archaeology points to 587 B.C.E. as the date, some 20 years later. In response, the society obstinately insists the words of the Bible trump any tangible evidence to the contrary. Never mind the fact that using a book as proof of itself is circular reasoning, but is the organization even following the book in the first place?
In order to convince a Watch Tower-following Jehovah’s Witness of anything, only two sources may be used: the Bible and Watch Tower-produced literature. So, using only those two sources, I will demonstrate that the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction cannot possibly be correct.
Tracing the line of kings
According to the Bible, archaeology and Watch Tower literature, the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus. The biblical encyclopedia Aid to Bible Understanding, published by the Watch Tower Society says on page 1195 that Nabonidus is believed to have reigned for 17 years. As far as this author knows, no clarification or correction has been made to this statement in any Watch Tower literature.
The king before Nabonidus was Labashi-Marduk, a “vicious boy” as the Watch Tower publication Babylon the Great Has Fallen — God’s Kingdom Rules states on page 184. It also says that his rule only lasted nine months, until “he had his throat cut by an assassin.”
On that same page, it names Nerigilassar as the king before that, reigning for four years, and also Evil-Merodach, reigning for two years before that.
Finally, Insight on the Scriptures, the successor (although largely identical in content) to Aid to Bible Understanding, says that Nebuchadnezzar ruled Babylon for 43 years (vol. 2 p. 480).
So the line of Babylonian kings from the start of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign can be totaled as follows:
- Nabonidus – 17 years
- Labashi-Marduk – 0.75 years
- Nergilassar – 4 years
- Evil-Merodach – 2 years
- Nebuchadnezzar – 43 years
The sum of the above figures is 66.75 years, which means there were almost 67 years from the start of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign until the fall of Babylon to the Persians. Using this number and the Bible, we can calculate the date of the fall of Jerusalem.
Calculating the fall
According to the Bible, Jerusalem’s destruction took place in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (2 Kings 25:8, 9). Since Nebuchadnezzar had ruled for a full 18 years and was in his 19th, he had a little more than 24 years until his kingship over Babylon ended when Jerusalem was sacked. Let’s see what happens when we start with the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction.
607 – 24 = 583 B.C.E., the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and the start of Evil-Merodach’s
583 – 2 = 581 B.C.E., the end of Evil-Merodach’s reign and the start of Nergilassar’s
581 – 4 = 577 B.C.E., the end of Nergilassar’s reign and the start of Labashi-Marduk’s
577 – 9 months = 577/576 B.C.E., the end of Labashi-Marduk’s reign and the start of Nabonidus’s
577/576 – 17 = 560/559 B.C.E., the end of Nabonidus’s reign and the invasion of Babylon by the Persians.
But wait! Something isn’t right here. Does not the society teach that Babylon was overthrown in 539, some 20 years later than our calculation resulted? It does! Since the Jews were send back to the ruins of Jerusalem two years later, in 537, this is the very basis for the calculation of 70 years, arriving at the date 607 B.C.E.! But there are 20 missing years and no accounting for it. Even if the months were fudged (because after all, it is doubtful each king ruled for an exact number of years) it still wouldn’t account for the discrepency.
Just for experiment’s sake, let’s see what will happen when we start with the secularly-accepted date of 587 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction.
587 – 24 = 563 B.C.E., the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and the start of Evil-Merodach’s
563 – 2 = 561 B.C.E., the end of Evil-Merodach’s reign and the start of Nergilassar’s
561 – 4 = 557 B.C.E., the end of Nergilassar’s reign and the start of Labashi-Marduk’s
557 – 9 months = 557/556 B.C.E., the end of Labashi-Marduk’s reign and the start of Nabonidus’s
557/556 – 17 = 540/539 B.C.E., the end of Nabonidus’s reign and the invasion of Babylon by the Persians.
When starting from the date accepted nearly unanimously by scholars and archaeologists, the numbers add up perfectly. There is no longer a 20-year discrepancy in the line of Babylonian Kings. But what about the 70-year prophecy? If the Israelites were not captives for 70 years, doesn’t that make the Bible wrong?
If that is indeed what the Bible says, then yes, this does make it wrong. However, does the Bible really teach that the Jews were captives for 70 years? It would be helpful to read the verse in question.
“And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite.’” – Jeremiah 25:11, 12
Notice it says nothing about Israel being captive in Babylon, but merely that “these nations” will “serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” Long before the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews (among other nations) were paying tribute to Babylon, who had conquered them but allowed them to stay in the city for a while. Also, Jews were often taken captive to Babylon long before the destruction of Jerusalem. Consider the following:
“In the first year of his [Persian king Ahasureus] reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years.” – Daniel 9:2
Notice Daniel refers to the devastations (desolations, ESV), not destruction, of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was attacked and beseiged for years before it was destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar’s seige took place in 597, and was done because King Jehoiakim ceased paying tribute to Babylon following their defeat in Egypt in 601. So at least before 601 Jerusalem was paying tribute to Babylon. The word used for “devastation” in Hebrew refers to heat, desert, a dry place. These terms can, but do not necessarily refer to the destruction of a city. It is entirely possible that the “devastation” of Jerusalem could have taken place years before its destruction, though admittedly a possibility is not fact.
Taking the number of the entire period of Babylonian kings from Nebuchadnessar to Nabonidus, and then adding the two years after the Persian conquest of Babylon it took to begin rebuilding the temple, we arrive at 69 years, which is awfully close to 70. Since months are only mentioned in the case of Labashi-Marduk’s reign, it very well could have been 70 years.
It is clear then, that the date of 587 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction is not necessarily in conflict with the prophecy of 70 years, and it also happens to fit perfectly with the both Biblically and secularly established timeline. In fact, it is one part of the Bible that is amazingly accurate historically. This is not necessarily a surprise, since the oldest copies of Daniel that exist are hundreds of years younger than the events they supposedly foretell. However, it is nevertheless an area where archaeology and the Bible do not disagree.
The reason the Watch Tower Society continues to hold on to the 607 date therefore cannot be to fall in accordance with the 70 year prophecy, but instead is being insisted upon because of 1914. This is especially evident when considering the fact that the forerunners of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Bible Students, originally assigned 1914’s significance to 1874. It was only years after the events of the World War I that the meaning of 1914 was changed in order to fit with what had transpired.
It is a matter of fact that 1914 was a false prediction. Russell taught that “1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble” (Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p.226). Though the Witnesses later lied about the nature of Russell’s prediction (Awake!, January 22, 1973, p.8), the facts remain. 1914 was not the end of anything, and certainly not the end of any “time of trouble.”
—
Our thanks to Brian Stilson who allowed us to publish his excellent article here in JWRecovery Magazine. This article was originally published on his blog, Memoirs of a Godless Heathen, which has since closed.
Popularity: 20%
September 30th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Brian
You left some key points that indicates that 607 BCE can be accurate. King Nabonidus is known for rebuliding the Ebabbar temple in Sippar and he started this in his second year reign. The Ebabbar Cylinder 2.14 says: “During 52 years the wall of this temple fell down and it became useless” And the last person who rebuilt the temple was king Nebuchadnezzar, yet his start of rebuilding work is unknown.
However, if you want to count (accordinally to the traditional Babylonian chronology) from the second year of Nabonidus to 52 years then it will go down to the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar.
Years of Reign
Nebuchadnezzar 43
Evil Marduk 2
Neriglissar 4
Labsi Marduk Nine Months
Nabonidus 2
-
Total = 51 years
So the problem here is that the numbers doesn’t add up according traditional chronology and the Neo-Babylonina chronology should be extended.
Now you mentioned the kings during Neo-Babylonia period. Should there be others?
Sinsharisskun is known as being a king in Assyria, however his tablets has been found in Babylonia. according to Grant Frame in his book Rulers of Babaylonia, 1995, p.270 brings out that he was a king of Babylonia for 7 or more years.
According to Assuretelilani, there was tablets found in Bablonia with his inscriptions on it is possible that he ruled in Babylonia for 4 years.
Regarding the tablets of Assuretelilani and Sinsarraiskun, John Brinkman brings out in his book “Prelude to Empire”, 1984, page 109, ft. 548, that the tablets of those kings can extended before and after the accession year of Nabopolassar. The problem here is that there is no room of ruling of these two kings before the accession year of Nabopolassar.
So the question is that: When did those two kings ruled in Babylonia?
October 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Here is more another problem with Neo-Babylonian Kings and that is Nabonidus. In the book of Daniel he mentioned Belshazzar as being King of Babylon. Belshazzar was know of taking on his fathers name. So that would mean if an in- scription was written for Nabonidus, it might refer to Belshazzar. So it would be very hard to determine of who the inscriptions was reffering to.
Also, another problem is that King Nabonidus left Babylonia for 10 years and went to Arabia and he had no control over Babylonia. So he would not be king over Babylonia in those years, it would be his son Belshazzar. So a 10 years of discreptioncey could happened here.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:23 pm
1. Which Scripture says that “The 70 years” were to end when some Jews returned to the site of the destroyed temple at Jerusalem?
2. Is it not more likely that Jews were able to return because they were no longer being held as captives?
3. Where do you get the idea that there is positive proof that the Jews made their journey during 537 BCE?
Doug
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:58 am
When you download the PDF file at:
http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/WTS_support_for_the_Babylonian_king-list.pdf
you will see my presentation on the WTS’s support for the conventional neo-Babylonian chronology. Set the PDF reader to display full screen, and see how the text on screens 4 to 6 link back to the first screen.
This file will be available for only a short while, since Yahoo is about to close down its Geocities facility. Maybe I’ll be able to set up somewhere else at some time.
The file may be distributed by others, provided no alterations are made to it.
It’s interesting to note that there are tens of thousands of clay tablets for the period and not one provides any evidence for any additional kings or for any longer reigns that the WTS desires. And that the 539 BCE date accepted by the WTS relies on a chronology that the WTS cannot accept.
Doug
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 am
A genuine question to Tom (I hope you don’t mind, Bill):
According to the WTS’s chronology, how old would Daniel have been when Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians?
Doug
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 am
Tom, the bible speaks of “seven” times, and “gentile” times, but nowhere does it say “seven gentile” times. Another example of the wt taking two scriptures and fusing them together to fit a doctrine.
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Dave
The bible says King Belshazzar was the last king of Babylon and not Nabonidus.
Doug
Daniel probably was in his 90’s when Medians and Persians took over. Now I hope you don’t mind answer this question. How old was Adda Guppi when died according to Stela?
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Tom,
I was genuinely wondering how old you thought Daniel was, based on the fact that his experience spanned the period of Babylon’s domination. When you say 90s, is that nearer 90 or 99?
You asked me about the priestess Adad-Gupi. I am surpirised you would refer to a tablet that confirms the generally accepted neo-Babylonian chronology. (Did you read my presentation I referred to in my earler response?)
This is what the translation of the Adad-Guppi stele says:
—————
From the 20th year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, when I was born, until the second year of Ashurbanipal, the 3rd year of his son Ashur-etil-ili, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of Awel-Merodach, the 4th year of Neriglissar, during (all) these 95 years …
He added (to my life) many days (and) years of happiness and kept me alive from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 9th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son whom I bore, (i.e.) one hundred and four happy years …
I have obeyed with all my heart and have done my duty (as a subject) during the 21 years in which Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, the 43 years in which Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolassar, and the four years in which Neriglissar, the king of Babylon, exercised their kingship, (altogether) 68 years; I have made Nabonidus, the son whom I bore, serve Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar, and Neriglissar, king of Babylon …
(Postscript:) She died a natural death in the 9th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon.
Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Pritchard, page 561
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 am
Doug
I’m quite familiar with Adad Guppi stela and the PROBLEMS with it and that is what YOU are IGNORING. Lets us talk about this 113 year old woman and not 104 years as many think. According to Adad Guppi she was born on the 20th year of Assurbanipal and lets do the calculations. Assurbanipal supposed to ruled 42 years. So we need to start with his reign.
Assurbanipal 42 year reign – she would be 22 years
Assuretilluili ruled 3 years
Nabopolassar ruled 21 years
Nebuchadnezzar ruled 43 years
Evil Marduk ruled 2 years
Nerglissar ruled 4 years
And she died on the 9th year of Nabonidus reign.
Total age is 104 years.
OH!! Here are the problems.
1. Assuretilluili ruled for 4 years so we must add one year to her age.
2. Labshi Marduk ruled for 9 months so we must add one around another year to her age.
3. And don’t forget Sinsharisskun. He ruled 7 or more years after Assurbanipal. So we must add 7 years.
So if we add these 9 missing years to her age, then we would get 113 years!!!
So Doug, people can argue about the age of Daniel as being about 100 years when he died. However, if another person lives 113 years old basically at the same time, then there is no problem.
Adad Guppi Stela is very very selective with it’s kings and I demonstrate it. Pagan people in the Middle East and it’s surrounding areas wrote things down what the believe in and not FACTS!!
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Sorry, Tom, but you have lost me. I am not in the least bit concerned if these ancient people made mistakes on their own records, because it is not I who depends on their dates.
I simply provided the text directly from a tablet of the period; they are not the words of a modern writer. If you don’t accept what these people wrote about themselves, that’s your right. But then don’t tell me that “so-and-so” ruled for a certain length, since you are telling me you don’t accept what they wrote.
Since you reckon these people made mistakes, I suppose that’s why in your response you blithely ignore their use of the Accession-year method of reckoning and the Nisan/Nisan and Tishri/Tishri Calendars.
And if these ancients did not record their dates correctly, surely that goes for the Hebrews with their records, too. They wrote at the same time.
I have no problem if they all made mistakes or distortions. If these records are unreliable, how does the WTS get its date of 539 BCE for the overthrow of Babylon? How does it get the date of Cyrus’ decree? How does it get 537 BCE for the return of Jews to the site of the Temple at Jerusalem?
(Was Adad-Guppi a Pagan? I thought she was a priestess of the God Sin.)
Doug
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Tom,
In addition to your ignoring their use of the Accession-year System and its effect on the chronology, you omit the fact that Sinsharishkun and Nabopolassar ruled at the same time, not successively.
But then you don’t accept that what these people wrote is fact. I am interested to see how you get 539 BCE for Babylon’s fall without making any reference to the records provided by these “unreliable Pagans”.
Doug
October 4th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Doug
It seems that YOU and others support their writtings. And if YOU want to eccept it, then that is YOUR right too. Let get to the facts here about Sinshariskun. He supposed to ruled in Assyria at the same time of Nabopolassar. However there are problems with this. There are tablets found in Babylonia (north, middle, south) with Sinsahrikun name on it and it gives a strong indication the he ruled in Babylonia at least 7 years or more. The years 2-6 of his reign were found in Nippur.
So are you going to tell us that Nabopolassar was ruling in Babylon while Sinshariskun was ruling next door in Nippur for 4 or 5 years? That hardly unlikely.
Lets get to 537 and 539. First YOU have to eccept that the 37th year of Nebucadanezzar was in 588 BCE. Or do you?
October 4th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Tom,
When I provided the translation of the chronologies from the tablet to Adad-Guppi (mother of Nabonidus), you told me that those people did not write FACTS but only what they thought. You claimed they were unreliable and that they belonged to the Pagan religion.
I simply ask how the date of 537 BCE can be arrived at with FACTS, and without using these unreliable Pagan sources. These are goal posts you have set out.
Further, since you charge these ancients with writing only what they “believe” and not the FACTS, then stand by those goal posts too, and do not reason on the basis of “likely” or “unlikely”. These are assumptions, not FACTS.
It is not a question of what I believe. It is not a question of dates I might assign to Nebuchadnezzar. The chronology I hold to is irrelevant. Indeed, dates are of no consequence to me, but they are to the WTS.
The issue is for the WTS to prove its position on 537 BCE from FACTS, using the goal posts you have set out – (1) facts only, and (2) do not use Pagan sources.
Doug
(PS. And I do mean 537 BCE, the year claimed by the WTS that Jews returned and worshiped at the site of the Temple ruins at Jerusalem.)
October 5th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Doug
I believe we have a misunderstanding here. You are asking about WT claimed the Jews returned to Jerusalem in 537 BCE. Are YOU assuming that it is ONLY WT is making that claim?
My point regarding the list of kings is that it is problematic and that is the reason why I brought up about the 37th year on Nebuchadnezzar. Was it 588 BCE or 568 BCE?
October 5th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Tom,
There is absolutely nothing to misunderstand. I have been consistent all along:
“Where do you get the idea that there is positive proof that the Jews made their journey during 537 BCE?” (Oct 1)
“If these records are unreliable, how does the WTS get its date of 539 BCE for the overthrow of Babylon? How does it get the date of Cyrus’ decree? How does it get 537 BCE for the return of Jews to the site of the Temple at Jerusalem?” (Oct 3)
“I am interested to see how you get 539 BCE for Babylon’s fall without making any reference to the records provided by these ‘unreliable Pagans’.” (Oct 3)
“I simply ask how the date of 537 BCE can be arrived at with FACTS, and without using these unreliable Pagan sources. These are goal posts you have set out.” (Oct 4)
“The issue is for the WTS to prove its position on 537 BCE from FACTS, using the goal posts you have set out – (1) facts only, and (2) do not use Pagan sources.” (Oct 4).
——————————
I am not asking whether someone else agrees with that date; there is any number that assumes 536 BCE, while others equally say 535 BCE. It’s up to the WTS to show WHY they accept one date over another.
It is strange to say that the WTS accepts that date because others do. If it did that, then on the same basis it would accept the correct date for Jerusalem’s destruction.
You ask me: “Are YOU assuming that it is ONLY WT is making that claim?”
No, Tom, I am saying that the WTS cannot prove when the Jews returned to Jerusalem. They have no FACTS.
I am saying that they cannot prove which year Babylon fell in without resorting to the “Pagan” sources.
Do not try to distract from my request: Prove to me when Babylon fell, and by that I mean PROVE.
It’s not good enough to say that the WTS accepts the date given by authorities, because these very same authorities all just as consistently give a date for the destruction of Jerusalem that the WTS will not accept.
The irony is that while the WTS accepts a date for the fall of Babylon from secular sources, it does not accept the method or the sources used by secular authorities to arrive at the date.
Doug
October 6th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Doug
I’m trying to stipulate what FACTS do you have that the Jews didn’t return to Jerusalem in 537 BCE? And where is the facts regarding king Nebuchadnezzar 37th year is 568 BCE?
If YOU can prove that Nebuchadnezzar 37th year is 568 BCE with none pagan facts, then we will cover 537 BCE.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
G’day Tom,
Since you want the FACTS about the “date of the return of the Jews”, I refer you to my Study at:
http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/The_Jews_return_home_ver_3.pdf
We know that the city fell to the Medes and Persians after Tishri 1 (October) 539 BCE. It is not I who questions the clay tablets and stelae left by the Babylonians.
If they were using the Nisan calendar, Cyrus’ first year began (about) April 538 BCE. If he gave his decree for the Jews to return during Winter or even later in his first year, it is not possible they returned in 537 BCE, given the time needed for preparation and the minimum 5 months travel time.
If the ancients, including Ezra and then the later writer of Chronicles, were using the Tishri calendar, Cyrus’ first year began October 538 BCE. If Cyrus gave his decree late in his first year, the Jews returned in 536 BCE at the earliest.
BUT the WTS demands there was a king named Darius who ruled ON HIS OWN BEFORE Cyrus, and that Darius reached a First Year. This would mean that Cyrus’ First Year could not have started before either April (Nisan) 537 BCE or October (Tishri) 537 BCE at the earliest. These dates prevent the Jews arriving in Jerusalem during 537 BCE.
The fact is that WTS cannot know when Cyrus issued his decree; the best they can do is to live in hope and say “likely”. So they are not giving you an explanation based on fact.
———————
You will see my answer to your question about the dates for Nebuchadnezzar when you read my material I previously referred to:
http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/WTS_support_for_the_Babylonian_king-list.pdf
The date for the Fall of Babylon depends on the accepted dates for the period and on the accepted neo-Babylonian kinglist.
If 539 BCE is accepted, this puts the seal of acceptance on the generally accepted dates of the chronology for the neo-Babylonian period. See the picture at:
http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/Why_historians_know_Babylon_fell_in_539_BCE.pdf
The WTS takes 539 BE from the chronologists and it accepts the neo-Babylonian kinglist, yet it does not accept the dates for Nebuchadnezzar.
Doug
October 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Doug
Thanks for the info. Let me take a look at this and respond later. You know WT is NOT the only ones saying that the Jews returned to their land in 537 BCE. Secular history says that same thing.
Also there are problems with regarding the dates of Nebuchadnezzar his and other kings tablets seems to overlap with one another.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
No problems, Tom.
I look forward to see your thoughts. I will wait until then before I respond to your last comments.
Doug
October 9th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Doug
Here are some problems with Nebuchanezzar and Evil Marduk. BM66846 has Evil Marduk Accession year IV-?-00. And BM55806 has Nebuchadnezzar ruling up to X-?-43. You see the problem here Doug? There is a 6 months overlap. The accession year of Evil Marduk should be after the 10 month of Nebuchadnezzar. Usaully and overlap of tablets give a good indication that there might be another king ruled during that time or they ruled longer. But who knows?
Here is another problem too. According to Ronald Sack book “Images of Nebuchanezzar”, Evil Marduk ruled 7 years while king Nebuchanezzar was insane for those years. So the question is that did he reign 7 years and 2 years after his dad died?
There are more problems with the tablets and I will address it later.
October 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Hi Tom,
The WTS consistently says that their date for the Destruction of Jerusalem is determined from the date for the return of Jews following their Exile at Babylon, and then counting 70 years back from that date (see, for just one example, “Awake!” of March 22, 1960).
1. The WTS now accepts that Babylon fell in 539 BCE (previously it accepted other dates).
2. This 539 BCE date is taken from secular historians who, in turn calculated it using their accepted dates for Nebuchadnezzar. If their dates for Nebuchadnezzar are incorrect, this means that their date for the Fall of Babylon is therefore also incorrect.
3. The WTS is incapable of proving that Jews returned in 537 BCE. Checking the WWW shows that while some accept 537 BCE as the year, just as many accept other dates of 538 BCE and 536 BCE.
4. If the WTS accepts the date of 539 BCE because that is the date accepted by secular sources, then it is accepting the method used by those authorities to arrive at that date, which includes Absolute dates within the reigns of Nabopolassar and of Nebuchadnezzar. (Naturally, the Bible cannot give dates in terms of the Julian or Gregorian Calendars.) As I said, this means that if the dates for Nebuchadnezzar are incorrect, this makes the calculated date of 539 BCE incorrect (and in turn, 537 BCE).
5. If the WTS accepts the dates of 539 BBCE and 537 BCE because secular sources provide them with those dates, then to be consistent, the WTS must also accept the date universally provided by those very same authorities for the Destruction of Jerusalem.
I am of course ignoring their many other problems, two of which are:
(a) Whether the return of Jews was the event that marked the end of the 70 years.
(b) Whether there is a secondary application of Daniel 4, beyond its Biblical application to Nebuchadnezzar.
I would appreciate it, and so would your fellow JW readers of your replies, if you address the issue I have consistently posed: “Can the WTS PROVE that the Jews returned in 537 BCE?”
Doug
October 11th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Doug
I can give you historical info on Jews return to their homeland in 537 BCE, and YOU still would not eccept it. Your mind are FIXED of what you believe. I gave you two refferance that indicates that there are overlaps on tablets between Nebuchanezzar and Evil-Marduk in which it indactes that there might be another king that ruled in between them or Evil-Mardu was king twice. Yet, you still have not address it.
You can give some referance of Josephus in order to to prove your point and belief in which I respect. And I came to believe that according to Josephus “The Antiquties of the Jews” Book 10, chpt 11, par 2. regarding the after the reign Labosordacus [Labshi-Marduk] 9 months, “… it came to Baltasar, who babylonians was called Naboandelus [Nabonidus].
The problem here is that Belshazzar was called by the same name of his father Nabonidus. So what tablets that was insribed to Nabonidus was reffering to Balshazzar?
October 12th, 2009 at 1:37 am
G’day Tom,
I suggest that the real reason you do not provide me with proof that exiled Jews returned to their homeland in 537 BCE is that there are NO historical FACTS.
I assert that it is the WTS that is FIXATED on its date. Do you really think the WTS could change its mind?
When you asked me, I did provide you with the evidence that shows the WTS cannot prove the Exiles returned to the Temple site in 537 BCE. (They returned quite some time before they attended the temple site in the month of Tishri.) In any case, there is no Biblical evidence that this event marked the end of the 70 Years.
When you asked me about the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, I did provide you with my material on the WWW. So I have answered you about his dates.
To say that “there might be another king that ruled in between them or Evil-Mardu was king twice” is based only on a MIGHT BE, not on any FACT.
Surely, if a couple of reigns overlap, that would SHORTEN the overall length of the period in question, not insert another 20 years. I suggest you need to find tablets – and there are thousands upon thousands of them – that ADD years to a reign or insert an additional king or two.
In any case, your questions are irrelevant. This is the way that the WTS gets its date for the Destruction of Jerusalem: They start with 539 BCE for Babylon’s Fall, then they go back to 537 BCE for the Jews’ return to the site of the Temple at Jerusalem, and then they jump back 70 years. Voila, it’s 607 BCE. So the WTS’s method depends on the correctness of the year that the Exiles worshiped at the Temple site.
If the dates for Nebuchadnezzar are wrong, then the date for the Fall of Babylon is wrong, because that date is calculated from Absolute dates for the period and then using the accepted chronology for the period to arrive at the date for Babylon’s fall.
And as far as Josephus is concerned, we both know that he said that Jerusalem lay in its devastated state for 50 years. Sorry, but you have lost me about Belshazzar.
Doug
October 12th, 2009 at 2:01 am
Tom,
Sorry, I need to express one of my statements a bit better.
I am saying that there are thousands upon thousands of tablets available from Babylon. To make the chronology longer you will need to find tablets that insert extra years into known reigns or you will need to find tablets that provide extra kings.
Regards,
Doug
October 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Doug
That was my whole point!! A couple days ago I presented 2 tablets that overlap 6 months between Nebuchadnezzar and Evil- Marduk. This give an indication of a possible another king or one ruled longer than expected!! Aslo, I presented that there is a strong possiblity that many tablets was address to Nabonidus was addressed to Belshazzar while he was king of Babylon.
So where do we get the facts Doug? Is it from Encyclopedia of History books?
October 13th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
BACKGROUND
(a) Although Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, the WTS says it happened 20 years earlier in 607 BCE.
(b) To arrive at its date, the WTS starts with 539, then it goes forward to 537 and then it jumps backwards to 607 BCE.
(c) This is based on its claimed ability to interpret Scripture.
(d) It has to ignore and denigrate the accepted chronology for the period.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The WTS’s starting date depends on the neo-Babylonian dates and chronology that it does not accept. If the dates and the chronology are wrong, then the WTS’s starting date of 539 BCE is wrong.
2. The WTS cannot prove when Jews returned to the site of the destroyed Temple at Jerusalem. (Not that this event marked the end point of the “70 years”, but that’s a separate issue.)
3. The “70 years” did not start with the destruction of Jerusalem, or even shortly afterwards. It was not even necessary for the city to be destroyed for the 70 years to run its course.
4. A memorial tablet to Nabonidus’ mother lists the chronology for the period. She died in his 9th year, aged 104. The WTS says the neo-Babylonian chronology is 20 years short, which would have made her 124 years old when she died. Tom suggests the need to add a further 7 years.
5. Fiddling with the lengths of rulers before Nebuchadnezzar is irrelevant, since it is the dates between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus that the WTS needs to address.
6. Suggesting there were overlaps in reigns simply REDUCES the length of the period. The WTS is seeking to INCREASE the length of that period.
7. Thousands upon thousands of tablets are dated to the reigns of the Babylonian kings (including the continuous business tablets of the Hebrew business family, the Egibis). No tablet mentions a reign that is 20 years longer than the accepted chronology, and none inserts an extra king.
And that’s the end of the matter.
Doug
October 27th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Shoe gazing! Open your eyes… these numbers these ancient names have no power no matter how you arrange them; except that, that you give to them. Why scour the ashes of a failed God in a search for meaning that He could not provide when whole.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Well, if it matters, Doug is right. JW’s are just really stubborn people. If Jehovah says the sky is green, then the sky is green. I can provide as much evidence and fact as i can muster, and i can look up and clearly see that the sky is blue, but a JW will ALWAYS argue, to the death, on the side of the green sky, no matter how apparent and clear the fallacy is.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:22 am
Jon Thomas,
You are absolutely on the ball! These numbers have no significance except to JWs. God did not provide these numbers nor did Scripture anywhere place any significance on them. These ideas, and those of other prophetic speculators such as the SDAs and the Dispensationalists, are a hangover from the 19th century.
As Claudia indicates, these numbers are of value to show JWs they are being lied to by their leadership. That’s their value.
Doug
November 1st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
The argument for an earlier date is pointless. The Society, and others, fix the 607 date as fact because its the only possible date, using the Bible prophecy as the only guideline, as I understand it, ( there are severl sites online Ive found addressing this).
This would make perfect sense to a JW, or any person who trusted the Scriptures more than science and archealogy, which is your only choice if you believe the word of God is the Bible.
They are awaiting further proof that the date is correct( 607), as they did in many other seemingly contradictory historical references. There is no reason to therefore pay any attention to those saying the date is incorrect.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Shawn,
I’m not quite with you. It is the WTS that wants the earlier date of 607, whereas I and others agree that Jerusalem was destroyed 20 years later, in 587 BCE.
The Bible does not give BCE dates. If science and archaeology are wrong, then the BCE date that is taken from science and archaeology by the WTS in not reliable.
I have drawn a picture that shows the WTS’s “Bible Chronology”. You will find it at: http://www.jwstudies.com/WTS_Bible_Chronology.doc
Doug
July 17th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Lets say that everyone here is correct, and that we should add some months adding up to 1 or 2 or 3 years, or if we should add 4 or 5 because nebopolassar didnt want to reign with anyone at the same time (not even if that someone reigned over another kingdom), or if we should add nebukadnesars years of illnes (Even though the insight says those years are included in the 43 years), or if we should add 10 years because nabonid went on a trip, or add 15 years because nebonid started building a temple in his seccond year (But ofcorse the building of that temple could take nabonid 15 years, so we dont have to adjust anything). Then what years do we get?
here they are: 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 594, 596, 597 and 602….
It never adds up to 607.
So instead of proving 587 as incorrect, prove 607 as correct, or if it is impossible, find the error or the missing information the watchtower should have added.